>>19541Was he born in America or he another Obama with secrecy surrounding his past?

Nevermind that, you better do some math here:

There are around 360,000,000 Americans today (and growing). Lets cap that as of now. $1,000 per month would total $360,000,000,000 (360 billion) per month. In one year - 12 months - this would cost $4,320,000,000,000 (4.32 Trillion) PER YEAR. Over the last 100 years the US dollar has already devalued by ~98% due to debt insolvency. Debt insolvency is a term where you are in massive amounts of debt and you literally do not have the means to pay that debt back. As of now debt insolvency is a huge problem and its bankrupting individuals, families, bushinesses, corporations, institutions all over - not to mention whole states like Illinois (which has a pension crisis)... now... you are basically saying we need to QUADRUPLE our debt insolvency. OK... so who is going to pay for all this? This money comes from taxpayers, and many taxpayers are having problems just putting food on the table and keeping up with mortgage payments. Do you have any clue the fiscal burden and stress this socialist policy would put on the taxpayers when they are already overwhelmed? Do you understand by increasing debt insolvency this devalues the US dollar even further causing more price inflation on consumer goods? In other words, the taxes that would have to be dramatically increased and re-distributed would be costing the taxpayers at the grocery stores not only when taxes were due?

Here's what SUCKS even more: lets say you tax the rich kike oligarchs like bankers, CEOs, CFOs, wall street shareholders, corporations, etc. That actually sounds good, it would be, at first. Until they all move out of the country and drop the US dollar and move to countries like Russia and China and India and Europe. See what I'm saying? Massive layoffs would then occur due to all the employers from the outsourcing institutions having to lay off more and more workers (because they'd be transitioning to OTHER countries to save money and make their profits!) So then you'd have a whole lot of lost tax revenue because Americans who once worked and paid taxes would no longer have a steady income to pay those taxes anymore.

So the you ask yourself again: who would pay the 4.32 Trillion Per Year bills? It wouldn't work long-term. And those countries that have all that new industry would start liquidating those US Treasury Bonds too (why hold onto our devaluing debt that was promised to pay interest when it might end up in total loss?). It would create hyperinflation as the value of our fiat currency crashes.

>>19572>lets say you tax the rich kike oligarchs like bankers, CEOs, CFOs, wall street shareholders, corporations, etc. That actually sounds good, it would be, at first. Until they all move out of the country and drop the US dollar and move to countries like Russia and China and India and Europe.

Good riddance then. They need America more than we need them. Literally no one wants to live in Russia or China even if you pay them more, western countries are status symbols for good reason and your money is safer here.

>rich kikesIf you're a national socialist then you shouldn't have a problem with booting the undesirable elements. After all, Hitler confiscated the wealth of the Jews. No one should be above the law, and capitalists should be required to play by the government's rules to do business in a country. If assholes leave, then new Generation Z entrepreneurs will take their place.

>So the you ask yourself again: who would pay the 4.32 Trillion Per Year bills?

Tax the rich and force companies to pay for it. Andrew Yang's other long-term solution is in part to add a GST tax because it makes more sense and prevents double taxation. I believe we should just replace the sales tax with a GST tax too.

>>19573You still didn't answer that guy's core question able it being unsustainable to maintain. I'm not saying I like all the CEOs and big business either, but driving WEALTH out of the country should be the last goal of anybody who wants to take power and make change, democratically or otherwise. How is the government going to pay it's massive obligation when all the money is gone?

>>19573While I know it would seem great to drive some of those crooked SOBs out of the country, this would not prevent decent businesses from packing their bags and leaving either. If we had a 50% (or larger) corporate tax rate, this would absolutely kill industrial productivity, killing incentives that create employment, killing incentives that start businesses which mine/produce/manufacture/provide goods/services.

You could have a tax which is aimed at the very top (aimed to tax billionaires in attempt to make them pay their share) and that might not impact many smaller companies - however anyone that had enough money to fall into that tax bracket would inevitably leave the country (maybe not 'bad', but again, its lost tax revenue). These billionaires would simply move to offshore tax havens like China currently is now, and with their wealth they'd live like kings outside the US.

>If assholes leave, then new Generation Z entrepreneurs will take their place.

That could happen, but thats not exactly the point. The point is average taxpayers cannot afford such a massive social tax. And those that ARE rich are wealthy enough to bail out of the country to avoid such taxes! If people realized they could live off $1,000 per month for doing nothing... or working their asses off to create a rich business and have half (or more) of their wealth confiscated via taxation, the average person would say "fuck that, I'm not going waste my time working my ass off, I'll take the $1,000 per month for nothing!" And again, you either tax the workers to fund this socialistic policy (which we all know the working class can't afford it), or you tax the super rich and they immediately pack their bags and say "see ya!" and the government just lost most the tax revenue needed for universal income.

California was going to do this two years ago and they had to do the math to figure out they couldn't fund universal income (too many tax payers were leaving!). So they canceled it before it ended up a complete disaster.

>>19577The most ironic thing is when you have a big desperate government that enacts failed policies, typically its the rich people that can get out before its too late and its the hard working class that stays around and suffers the consequences. And when governments get mad, they punish people. They don't care who caused it, or who didn't for that matter. So the results are pretty obvious what happens next. Despotism.

>You still didn't answer that guy's core question able it being unsustainable to maintain. I'm not saying I like all the CEOs and big business either, but driving WEALTH out of the country should be the last goal of anybody who wants to take power and make change, democratically or otherwise. How is the government going to pay it's massive obligation when all the money is gone

I'm not susceptible to fear mongering like you. Who says the government should pay back all of its debts? Government debt is an investment, a risk just like stocks or anything else which the banks signed up for. If companies can declare bankruptcy and restructure their loans, if I can remortgage my house, the why shouldn't governments have the same power? Let it fail and leave those bankers holding 100 year old debta. It's not like those bank CEOs deserve every penny they've earned. They're the least patriotic bunch on the planet.

I don't need wealth, in fact unlike you I know I'm never going to be a multimillionaire: the system won't allow it. I entertain myself well without thinking I need to buy a $10,000 suit to feel good about myself. Most wealth is wasted on overconsumption. More would get built if the rich people gave their excess wealth over to the government.

>>19577>>19578If some of the rich people leave good riddance. Don't be afraid to start over. The country would still be a 1st world country with more money and potential than South Korea if all of the 2% fled to Mexico tomorrow. In fact, it might be easier to get things done without the lobbyists fucking up the politics/will of the people, if the rich people immigrated out.

>>19584All right then. I'll give Andrew a shot and a carrot . Rather then arguing yet, how about you spell out Andrew's full goals? As retarded as they may be. What is his plans? How does he plan to deal with the GOP and the Democrats? and if he is smart he should recognize there is the factions within the parties . Is universal basic income the only welfare or is there other stuff involved, and how does he pay for it? What about foreign policy? What are his stances on guns? Copyright law? you name it...

>>19588His priorities are on domestic issues, not foreign policy. He does want to effectively shrink the military's operating budget by 10%, by redirecting that funding to building and repairing infrastructure. I read his book, and his focus is on building the country and preparing rural communities for the looming automation crisis.

>Is universal basic income the only welfare or is there other stuff involved, and how does he pay for it?

As I explained the GST will fund at least half of UBI, but it won't replace welfare. Welfare recipients will have the option to either take welfare or UBI, but not both. The purpose is to allow people who want to work to do so while receiving $1000 a month that they wouldn't receive if they were on welfare (which pays more.) The current law disincentivizes injured people from ever working again once they go on welfare, because just a few hours of work or volunteering could disqualified them from receiving their benefits.

I think his other political views will come out as journalists start asking him hard questions. Until then you can read more about his political platform here:https://www.yang2020.com/policies/

>>19589> He does want to effectively shrink the military's operating budget by 10%, by redirecting that funding to building and repairing infrastructure. This actually impresses me as it seems like a plausible sane goal. As in he is actually thinking about how to achieve something with some realm of political possibility. If he pulls the troops home from the middle east and cuts the F-35 program he maybe able to get there easier than some would say. I suppose, in the long long long shot chance that he wins or should I say if you win? he could get that with an alliance of war skeptic tea party republicans and progressive democrats.

>His priorities are on domestic issuesThat's not bad. Though he'd better have a foreign policy plan. The 10% cut is a reasonable recognition of the fact that, even if the US does disengage we can't just get rid of everything all at once (nor should we, but it should be much more defensive).

>As I explained the GST will fund at least half of UBI, but it won't replace welfare. Welfare recipients will have the option to either take welfare or UBI, but not both. The purpose is to allow people who want to work to do so while receiving $1000 a month that they wouldn't receive if they were on welfare (which pays more.) The current law disincentivizes injured people from ever working again once they go on welfare, because just a few hours of work or volunteering could disqualified them from receiving their benefits.This has some logic to it but the way you were screaming about it and running out CEOs is still retarded. I don't care for the rich either but that running them out of the country talk won't help things. Especially since such redistributive talk has a history of expanding in scope those who it labels as the "better off" and horrible consequences for a lot of the people you so claim to want to help. Overall I'm still very skeptical of UBI.

>preparing rural communities for the looming automation crisis.If he actually cares about rural communities then I'll some points on that. I'm middle road but more skeptical of automation just not blackpill.

> Until then you can read more about his political platform here:Well, I honestly may look int him more. Him larping as some supporter on a random chan and sounding like a commie is a horrible first impression. I wouldn't know how, even if he wins, do even a quarter of the things he wants the way he wants with our to current parties, unless he has some crazy plan to elect a bunch of congressmen or some how intents to use the populist factions of each party to put pressure. Which would be possible with somethings but would be hard to actually hold as a coalition. You need to sharpen you're marketing pitch a well and be ready to answer hard questions better.

I still think this is pretty retarded, but the fact that I'm impressed at all surprises me. So have a carrot.

>>19589I agree with him on shrinking the military budget because I'm against this endless war for profit agenda, however I'm skeptical about the whole universal income policy because this would be 4x to 5x the cost of all our military expenditures combined and we just can't hyper-inflate our currency like that without serious painful financial consequences.

>>19617>however I'm skeptical about the whole universal income policy because this would be 4x to 5x the cost of all our military expenditures combined and we just can't hyper-inflate our currency like that without serious painful financial consequences.I know. Completely unsustainable. Even when I see some remote reasoning behind such proposals the question always is: how do you pay for it? Someone who would stand against CEOs and wallstreet is a boon but there are more constructive ways to challenge there power.

>I agree with him on shrinking the military budget because I'm against this endless war for profit agendaYeah. I'm actually surprised someone with such retributive talk has such a small reasonable proposal for cuts, frankly I'd like a little more. Our current inflated budget actually makes us less effective at fighting as we are paying for overpriced toys over real war equipment. I'm looking at you Lockheed and how you murdered the f-20 in cold blood

>>19620To pay for this socialist program would mean the PEOPLE end up paying most the cost via hyperinflation. If you flood the economy with debt what happens is the currency soaks that up like a sponge would water. The sponge can only hold so much water for so long before it turns to mush and starts leaking all over the place. Inventively you ruin the sponge trying to soak up all the water intake for a long period of time. So the currency devalues and crumbles apart when you flood the economic system with unsustainable debts. Who pays for it? Everyone using that currency. Instead of $2 for a loaf of bread, you would see $20 per loaf. Instead of $80 for a new DeWalt power drill, you would be paying close to $800. Etc.

The US has been very fortunate to have a global reserve currency status for so long (since 1944). If we didn't, our economy would have already crashed and burned by now. Most countries can't create the massive debts we do and get away with it the way we have been. And no, its not going to last forever, so buckle up and be prepared.

And giving poor people more of the pie does not create inflation, it reallocated money that would be wasted on toys and parties on private islands with champagne fountains or rivers that flow into the sea. More redistribution from to to bottom would allow for almost anyone to better answer Alan Watts's philosophy from the link below. "What would you do in your life if money weren't an issue?"https://youtube.com/watch?v=agbsQbMi7x0 [Embed]

>>19636Pay for a budget that would cost 4 trillion a year? No. Not even a trillion per year. There is simply not enough of those rich billionaires living in America to pay all that kind of debt. I'll tell you what would happen if the government tried making them pay for our national debt: they'd simply pack their belongings and flee the country. They - unlike us - have enough wealth to live almost anywhere they like, they don't have to remain a US citizen. That is what would most likely happen. And has happened in other countries that have tried it before, the rich always flee austerity and the average citizens always get stuck with the insolvent debts (and hyperinflation).

>>19636>And giving poor people more of the pie does not create inflation

You are right, giving people money does not create inflation. Creating money out of thin air (debt) creates inflation. That is the big difference. Its not like all this money even exists, we are in debt, meaning we owe it, its a loan. National debt is not good, it means the nation owes not actually has. Here's the kicker: our taxes barely even cover the interest on the debts we owe. Are you beginning to understand the fraudulent system? You will if you watch the movie "The Big Short" in its entirety.

>>19651What if all the desirable countries raise taxes and there's no where left for the rich to go? Not all rich will flee either, because they want their kids to go to good schools, and want to stay with their kids, and not risk their life with the muggings and ransoms in South Africa or Brazil, or under the pollution and fickle government of China/Russia. If rich people only cared about lower taxes and accumulating money then there would be no large companies in Europe today. IKEA exists in one of the most taxes nations on the planet.

>>19653Well here's one of the problems: countries are always trying their best to compete economically, and raising taxes in one country would incentivize capitalization in other countries which would attract more rich investors and oligarchs. Here's what you might not have realized: the billionaires of the world can live like KINGS in most other countries isolated from the civic populations, even in third world hellholes. Why? Because they can afford to.

>Not all rich will flee either, because they want their kids to go to good schoolsNot really. Any billionaire offspring don't have to worry about what we worry about, they are set for life the day they are born, they're already extraordinarily enriched. Working hard, education? Ha! They already have 10+ different mansions with multiple yachts around the coast line with access to bricks of cocaine and the finest $4,000 per hour prostitutes humanity can provide. They don't need to do jack shit because they were born rich, its inherited.

So in order to raise taxes in every single industrialized nation, every single nation would have to be on board with this. Clearly countries like China (now with 0% corporate tax to counter Trump's tariffs) would have to go along with such schemes to outmaneuver these oligarchs. Its not that simple convincing national governments to change their policies, especially when these oligarchs hold their political systems hostage via corporate lobbying. THAT is only one major obstacle. In order to enforce global austerity against the greedy oligarchs and make them pay their fair share (which they should) we would have to have some form of global government. However the consequences of a global government are pretty serious: nations would have to give up their national sovereignty, give up their democracies up to unelected bureaucrats (who could also become easily corrupted), and give up their quest for imperialism (good luck trying to convince the US, Russia, China and Israel to do such a thing).

I agree with you, the super rich should pay their fare share. But to enforce this you would have to change the way the global financial system works (and even national imperialists have a hard time doing something this grand). The austerity always falls back on the pour workers, I hate to say that but it is always the case. If you increase taxes its always passed onto the consumers and workers. The rich flee, they have luxury offshore havens and third world dictatorships openly accept them and allow them to purchase up their land because money talks more than truth or good will towards others. I hate to break it to you, but this is the real world we live in and yes it SUCKS.

>>19653>If rich people only cared about lower taxes and accumulating money then there would be no large companies in Europe today.

Not really. I'd encourage you to research The Panama Papers. They run 'shell companies' in many other countries to launder their profits into offshore accounts to escape taxation laws from countries like the US and Europe already. They got this game down, and they have it rigged very well. Outside a total global economic collapse, there is not much else that can change this or shut down their criminal activities. And guess what? Governments know it, they won't admit it, but they already know how this game is rigged against all of us. This is why we have so many people angry at globalization in the first place. Globalism only encouraged all this fraud and criminality because humans are easily corrupted and also expendable to these elitists. If one government can't be corrupted, 20 others can and likely will be.

>>19656Globalization isn't necessarily bad, but giving up too much of your sovereignty to the create a new feudalism run by transcontinental aristocrats is. These people are like what you see in Crazy Rich Asians. You need to change the laws and enforce them to make the economy serve people instead of making people serve the economy. The cult of free trade at all costs must not be in charge of any country.

And yes, the rich will still send their kids to elite schools even if they don't need to, because it's a status thing, and if they have so much money then they'd rather give up some to have more status. An Ivy league education and kids who can speak fluent English, preferably with a posh mid-Atlantic or British accent is a status thing, and the rich kids also go so they can make friends and network with the other kids from rich families, and then ignore the working class with whom they have no friends.

>>19655Not all taxes fall predominately on the poor, and not all tax cuts have to mainly benefit the rich, though if you keep electing the GOP that will happen. A more nuanced conversation to be had is to whom tax cuts and tax subsidies should go. The same goes for socialism: whom should it benefit?

Currently companies like Exon mobile receive billions in subsidies from the government, and the big banks received bailouts in 2008. That's a kind of socialism for the rich, a corportacracy.

Don't take it for granted all billionaires will move away, just look up how many live here on Fortune 500 magazine. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates aren't going anywhere. What matters is making sure the next generation pays their fair share of taxes, and if they don't pay their taxes then they should not be allowed to have access to the American market of 300 million consumers. You should not be allowed to import anything if you don't play by the rules.

>So in order to raise taxes in every single industrialized nation, every single nation would have to be on board with this. Clearly countries like China (now with 0% corporate tax to counter Trump's tariffs)

America and its allies fought and won a cold war against allies with whom it didn't trade, and could do it again. America, Japan and the EU together as a trading block greatly exceed the GDP of China and Russia. These countries should work together to allow government to reclaim its sovereignty from the international corporations. If the these countries were to stop trading, nollhardly anyone rich would want to move to China unless they were Chinese and well connected. White men do not enjoy living in China, and I know that from talking to them.

>>19651>Here's the kicker: our taxes barely even cover the interest on the debts we owe. Are you beginning to understand the fraudulent system? Another thing I'd recommend is skimming through our congressional budget office reports. One can see the incoming crisis spelled out right there.

>>19658>the rich kids also go so they can make friends and network with the other kids from rich families, and then ignore the working class with whom they have no friends

This is likely true, but my point was these kids wouldn't need to do that and likely would not if those countries started to enforce high taxation upon their families. Those super rich families would flip the finger and move elsewhere so they could avoid that taxation. Unless every industrialized nation gets on board with taxing the rich (and good luck trying to convince them to) then its almost hopeless because - unlike us - they have the wealth to flee and even retire on private offshore resorts where their kids would have pretty much everything they needed for the rest of their lives.

I would LOVE to see a fair tax on the uber-rich spoiled oligarchs, banking/corporate elites but the fact is they own most our politicians, and not only politicians in America either. If we want change we'll have to take back our nations one by one via nationalism and hold our leaders' feets to the fire to correct some of the injustices. Also beware there is a lot of controlled opposition lurking out there as well.

>>19660Some government is necessary, some of it complete waste and corrupted to the core. A lot of it just mismanagement (whether intentional or not).

>>19661The "shutdown" is only partial. Most of the government is still running, they have hundreds of billions $$$ allocated from previous budgets to run on contingency for a long time if need be. If it goes on for another year or two, then you might start seeing alarm bells ringing and possibility of them running out of their emergency funds.

>>19667There shouldn't be any shut down, all budgets should be determined by a budgeting process. There is much unnecessary instability, small business can't get approvals, and tens of thousands of jobs are being lost monthly in the private sector alone because of it. Congress, not the president is supposed took control the power of the purse per the constitution.

Bernie Sanders also said a couple days back that the 3 richest men in America own more than 50% of Americans. No one is saying anything about taking away their wealth, but high growth comes at a high cost. Google has ceased to be a company and just buys other companies and extracts their resources. For better productivity you have to constrain growth and not let it harm things like productivity, government, people, etc.

>>19700>For better productivity you have to constrain growth and not let it harm things like productivity, government, people, etc.Only problem is that often the government with regulation just starts to choose winners and losers itself and makes things worse. Not saying I want google to stay in power, I'm more than open to gutting them, but it must be done in a true spirit of trust busting rather than putting those industries under some kind of special oversight.

https://youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8 [Embed]Andrew Yang just starred on Joe Rogan's show, and did brilliantly. Unlike most candidates he actually spoke entirely about his platform and backed it up with facts.

I don't care what other dude's Yangs look like because I'm no homo, but my foreskin got sliced off minutes after I plopped out of a vagina and I'm glad because I don't remember it at all and my dick doesn't look like a hose. Also if you're uncircumcised you can't sleep outdoors in Australia because of Australian funnel-web spiders. So, yeah, sorry, but I don't think Yang has thought this through.